For all of those who want facts here are some. Choke on them. As for replys to me and from me SAVE IT.
June 9, 2009: Over the last few days we’ve heard endless rhetoric regarding ethics complaints filed by people who are using a loophole in the state ethics laws to file frivolous charges.
Currently there are two sets of rules for ethics complaints. There is one for complaints filed against lawmakers and another set of rules for complaints filed against Governors, Lt. Governors and Attorney Generals.
Both processes have a similar structure but the rules of confidentiality are dramatically different.
Lets say you file a complaint against a lawmaker.
In order to protect the lawmaker against baseless complaints, the official complaint form warns filers of the consequences of going public with any information until such time as the Legislative Ethics Committee determines the complaint has merit.
CONFIDENTIALITY pursuant to AS 24.60.170 (I): The person filing the complaint shall keep confidential the fact that a complaint has been filed as well as the content of the complaint. If the committee finds that a complainant has violated any confidentiality provision under AS 24.60.170, the committee shall immediately dismiss the complaints.
So if you talk…the complaint walks.
Lets say you file a complaint against the governor
The Executive Ethics statutes affords the Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General no such protection. A person can announce they are filing the complaint before or after they file. They can hold a press conference, send out a press release or even stand in front of the state office building screaming about the contents of the complaint…all before any probable cause that an ethics violation has occurred.
So how did this loophole in the ethics laws come about?
According to the Department of Law, the legislature created the loophole back in 1998 by removing the penalty for those who go public about the complaints made against the governor before the Personnel Board has a chance to determine if the complaint has any merit.
In 1998, the Alaska State Legislature passed SB105 which changed the way ethics complaints were handled by the Executive Branch. During committee testimony, former State Senator Drue Pearce testified that the overhaul was needed because of stories about how ethics complaints were being buried by the Executive Branch.
One of the changes eliminated the Attorney Generals office from punishing those who filed complaints then proceeded to advertise the complaint and the contents publicly even though probable cause hadn’t been determined.
Department of Law officials testified during the bill’s many hearings that there was no proof that complaints were being buried and warned lawmakers that the changes would have consequences.
Ignoring the warnings, lawmakers amended the law to eliminate the only tool the AG’s office had to demand confidentiality.
“The attorney general and all persons contacted during the course of an investigation shall maintain confidentiality regarding the existence of the investigation. [A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS
GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.]”
(Brackets indicate existing law that was removed by lawmakers.)
So in taking away the only provision the AG’s office had to try and protect confidentiality, lawmakers created the loophole that has allowed complainants to file complaints and then publicly advertise them.
Posters here claim that Palin “should have known” that these laws could be used as political weapons but it never happened for 9 years. Nobody knew.
FWIW, the Alaska Legislature just adjourned this morning. The ethics loophole that was used against Palin was not changed.
1 ethics complaint was filed against Palin before she was nominated for VP. In the year that followed, over 30 were filed and the pace was accelerating.